Hi again!
I'm Justin Mealey, and I testified at the Georgia Senate hearing today. Our team provided hard evidence of voter fraud, using the same data the Georgia certified the state with.
Here's a copy of the testimony: https://rumble.com/vcay7j-data-scientists-shocking-election-testimony.html
I wanted to do an AMA so that people can ask more questions related to our data methodology, clarify items about the voting process which we painstakingly investigated across multiple states, and hear your ideas about we could better get the word out about the fact that we seem to be one of the only groups operating off of hard, irrefutable conclusions based off of data.
EDIT: Thanks so much for the questions (heading to bed) -- hope I was able to clarify a few things for you guys. We'll ask Dave (the head data scientist who also testified from my group) to come do any AMA tomorrow as well.
EDIT 2: I'm sort of back right now (9AM EST) so will be periodically checking for new questions as I refresh tdw looking for spicy memes to repost on facebook.
EDIT 3: (10:32AM EST) I'm going to post a reply to a MrCaveman (which, thank you for the question) that I really want everyone to read:
https://thedonald.win/p/11RO7PRc9Q/x/c/4Drwoe2gIJ7?d=50
When doing work that you deem is important, the most vital thing you can have is focus. A lot of the times that means putting to the side all of the noise that surrounds a certain path. The poll pads are the noise when it comes to the actual ability to commit fraud during this election.
If you were creating a system to enact a fraud, how many points of contact would you design for that system to interface with in the voting process? How many confederates would you need to enable in that system? One way we've discovered only requires one true confederate to enact in a county, and we've actually identified some of these actual confederates. Depending on how things go, we might have to just release that in a video in the future.
My point being, that while your intentions are good (as most everyone's on this site's are), they distract from the actual fraud. By distracting from the actual fraud, parts of which we've proved through hard data analysis, it actually detracts from the ability for us to bring that fraud to light and abolish it.
Please, for the love of God, stop talking about poll pads.
no, he absolutely was not, going by the official count. and second of all, i wasn't talking about early voting, i/we were talking about "mail ins" specifically. "early voting" includes both mail ins and in person early voting. don't jump in to correct me if you don't have this stuff straight.
but even with both mail ins and early voting combined, again going by the official numbers, trump was DOWN by just about 100k going into election day. i was gambling on this shit (on trump) so i was actually paying attention. not sure where you got your reports from but i'm guessing you weren't getting any and weren't following what happened. there are countless articles about how trump was down going into election night, here's just one: https://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/state-politics/article246891077.html
Hey beepboop, I'm just shooting off the top of my head here as best I can remember. I don't have the benefit of a calculator for a brain. I can remember the basic gist of the reports zi was hearing. Yeah, down about 100K on election day. That definitely rings a bell. I think they were predicting Joe Biden needed at least a 300k advantage going in to win. 11 million people voted in Florida . Over 65% of all registered voters had done so before November 3rd. Assuming 85% turnout that would have to be at least 7 million early votes with only 100k advantage for Biden. That's about 1.5%.
The statistical difference we are talking about has to be one of semantic confusion. I know that some of these states are not allowed to tally early votes before election day. Early and mail-in are possibly lumped together in Some and not the others?